About your Search

20121117
20121117
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)
, but will the obama administration let it happen or turn an oil boom into a bust? welcome to the journal editorial report, i'm paul gigot. headed into friday, fiscal cliff talks with congressional leaders, president obama gave us a hit list of his negotiations strategies, repeating his intention to immediately raise tax rates on top earners. >> when it comes to the top 2%, what i'm not going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need it which would cost close to a trillion dollars and it's very difficult to see how you make up that trillion dollars if we're serious about deficit reduction, just by closing loopholes and deductions. the math tends not to work. >> paul: but does the president's math add up? let's ask wall street journal columnist bill mcguerin, and analyst steve moore and washington columnist kim strassel. so, kim, the president won reelection, was this the hand of magnimty reaching out to the republicans? >> it's crazy, it's what the president says all the time. if you listen to the press conference, he seems to say the biggest wish list for his liberal partisans
state department officials from the obama and george w. bush administration's discuss public diplomacy in a tough budget in vermont. the discuss the effectiveness of student exchange programs and government-backed broadcasting outlets, like "voice of america." the george washington school of international affairs hosted this event tuesday. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> that is public diplomacy in action. [laughter] i'm a professor here at gw and the director of the institute for public policy and global communication. you can find us on twitter @ip dgc. we're also on facebook. we're hosting a conversation on twitter about this event,, hashtag ipdgc. what i will do to get as a rolling here is give a brief introduction and bio for our great panel here, and then get going into the discussion. we have a great -- with a lot of interesting people in the room. we need to leave time for discussion. first we have james glassman. executive director of the george w. bush institute. after a long career in journalism, he served as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs
attack, but did his testimony get the obama administration in even more hot water? >> a short time ago, the former cia director left capitol hill after five hours of testimony, closed, classified testimony before the house & senate intelligence committees. >> general pet petraeus' briefing of comprehensive. it added to our ability to make judgments about what is clearly a failure of intelligence. >> the talking points were must have more specific about the al qaeda involvement, but the final ones indicate even though it was clearly evident to the cia that there was al qaeda involvement. >> talking points prepared for her. >> said it was al qaeda. >> sometime between september 14 and september 16, somebody took the al qaeda element out and put the video in. >> the question we have is who made the changes and why? we haven't been able to get that answer. >> petraeus is saying, i said it was terrorism from the get go. if you did, why did susan rice go out two days later and say it was the video. >> why we need a select committee on this. >> the general had to acknowledge and none of us li
this territory for weeks now that he thinks the obama administration is incompetent. we know his stand when it comes to libya. let the other committees do their work. i don't think a watergate-style hearing will necessarily advance -- >> greta: i disagree. there is too much duplication and we have people coming at six hearings. i would rather streamline it. susan, what do you think? >> when have you six different committees, they're often unable to share information. the spell gent committee can't talk about the classified hearings. so mccain's point, if we have one place where all of this information can be centralized, we can get to the bottom of this faster. this is four americans who were killed. this is not -- this is worse than watergate because people died -- the question that the republicans have, why -- why aren't democrats agreeing to a specially committee. >> i think no one says it's not serious. i think that is a distraction from the point. sometimes i think congress -- there is -- there is a regular order that sometimes in the mess that you are talking about has its own intelli
to fake a scandal in the obama administration. paul waldman calls it scandal envy. nixon had watergate, clinton had le win ski and obama has gotten off scot-free and it's making the republicans livid. republicans are not going to get the watergate this time around. senator harry reid wrote a letter to john mccain and lindsey graham saying a collect committee for investigation will not happen. the time for phoney outrage is over. republicans need to get back to the real problems facing americans. get your cell phones out. tonight's question, will the gop stop their witch hunt on benghazi? text a for yes, b for no to 622639. or you can leave a comment on our blog. and we'll bring you results later on in the show. joining me now is retired colonel lawrence wilkerson, former chief of staff number colin powell's term. colonel, good to have you with us tonight. >> good to be here, ed. >> take us down the road of talking points. do we see unified talking points? is this common practice that the intell committee will get together to brief the congress and to brief the country? and is it usual
and that is drowns in yemen despite the obama administration's rhetoric to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al qaeda, that it's not drowns or airstrikes that are driving. it is civilian casualties. it's the individuals being killed along with the al qaeda targets. when i was in yemen, i was talking to someone who's very, very close to al qaeda he said look, you know, there's a difference between yemen and afghanistan and yemen and afghanistan are arabs and a knock at the country. in yemen archenemies in yemen. they move around much easier than they did. they can be a member of al qaeda and can be no locally. maybe some people known them as he tribesmen another see the u.s., for instance you would see them as an al qaeda member. the u.s. thinks it's killing an al qaeda member and maybe it is. but he's been a killed on the ground and yemenis seen being killed is in fact the tribesman. this is a challenge that the u.s. obama administration not released all and i would argue that the drones in the airstrikes have not actually solve the problem and they've actually exacerbated the problem the great deal.
singled out the obama administration for what he calls its indifference. >> we have to go back and re-examine the diplomating setting, if you will. people will be pushed to say we can't afford to ignore this region. we can't afford to ignore this conflict because we look back on the last four years and the indifference, if you will, of the obama administration to what is happening on the west bank and gaza. and i think there will be pressure. there will be pressure from egypt, from turka, pressure from qatar, the three countries that are most sympathetic to hamas. pressure to produce some kind of settlement. >> discussing the u.s. response to the israeli-palestinian crisis. if izrail launches a ground attack in gaza, experts say the battle could be as bloody as the 2008 invasion that killed 1400 palestinians or worse. since then, hamas has gotten better weapons and better trained its foot soldiers as well. brian todd explains what a ground war in gaza might look like. >> reporter: a precision strike from the air killing the chief of hamas' military wing, but it appears israel is getti
of the obama administration, he decided to make the u.n. ambassador a cabinet level position. when you're cabinet secretary, you have some obligation to perform your duties and then to be held responsible for them and accountable for them. i appreciate that he's loyal to her and she is loyal to him that he defended her, but i do think that the senators have legitimate reasons to question whether or not she should be the secretary of state. >> greg: yeah. i don't think that's going to happen. but what do i know? >> not much. >> greg: thank you very much for coming here and providing some mediocre information. plenty more ahead. i joke, little person. "the factor" moves along, the most troubling story of the night. the end of twinkies and wonder bread as hostess plans to shut down after union strike crip ams its production. ben stein will be here with the story in a few moments [ male announcer ] every day, thousands of people like you, are choosing advilĀ® because helps you keep doing what you love. no wonder it's america's #1 selling pain reliever. you took action, you took advilĀ®. a
that happens, most likely iranian supported elements started this. >> obama administration backs israel. is president obama standing with israel as in your judgment as he should? >> yes. so far he did. in the sense that he has no other option. no american president can come and say i'm with hamas against israel. he is with israel against hamas. at the same time this is the worst time for explosion to occur in the middle east. we know our situation in. we have an economic situation. ee needs unity in congress that is support of israel. we have the benghazi hearing. we may have to look at our national security doctrine. we have an arab spring that is being taken over by islamists. so putting that pressure that the u.s. can only do this and not more. >> gregg: hamas runs the authority in gaza. it's also a terrorist organization. it is recognized as a terrorist organization by the united states. hamas refuses to recognize israel, it's charter to this day vows the destruction of israel. does the international community including importantly the united nations need to stop supporting the hama
department first two years of the obama administration. but there's also a republican i'm going to mention here, richard haas. he's currently the president of the council on foreign relations, and he was a special assistant to president george h.w. bush, and during the administration of george w. bush, he served as the commissioner of policy and planning, same position as slaughter. he argues that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but it needs to become weaker. states should wont a weakened sovereignty, he says, ford to protect himselfs -- in order to protect themselves. i want to make one thing absolutely cheer clear. i'm not talking against international law in general or against international relations, and i draw a clear distinction between transnationalism and globalism and nationalism. there's nothing wrong with having international treaties. that means between nations. so the united states has a nato treaty. we get together with western europe, we're going to defend ourselfves, there's nothing wrong with that. same thing. i am criticizing in the book supernational,
be eager to help if the reelected obama administration wanted to take the lead and kickstart a process that deserves to be called a peace process. we certainly hope that would have been. with regard to the drug problem, i just want to add that of course everybody is now buying drones, even european armies are buying drones. but interestingly enough, as are injurious to countries in other parts of the world has declined because of the not so successful experience in over the last decade. i hope i'm correct i cannot recall a moment in recent history where in the absence of, you know, act of u.s. leadership or participation, the europeans are contemplating driving up plans right now for a military mission to molly. with the argument that what is going on in molly could he not necessarily, but could develop into something very similar to the kinds of phenomena that forced us into afghanistan a decade ago. so what i'm trying to say is the birth of the drug technology matters, i don't believe international development will allow us the luxury of keeping the boys home. there will be unfortuna
to the intelligence assessment. >> general, we have the gop still suggesting that the obama administration concealed the fact benghazi was a terror attack for political reasons. from what we have learned from general petraeus's testimony, doesn't it seem the administration held back information, if they did so it was because a genuine national security concern existed? >> well, you know, my take on this, alex, this is centralist political posturing inside washington. the problem was we had inadequate ground security there. that's a state department function, not cia. when the thing went bad we had this am bass do, bilingual in arabic, he shouldn't have been there. that was the problem. but -- characterized the mob was minutiae for good next sakes. libya is a mess. there's no government, no army. it's not a success. probably better than having that monster gadhafi and his family in charge of it. but that's the problem. they have to get their eyesight up. we've got a war in afghanistan going that's running us $6 billion a month and several hundred killed and wounded a month. and here we're focused on
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)